Within two weeks we had finished and our department submitted the proposal, along with a demo of the software application we had suggested as a strategy for overcoming the geographic factor in the outsourcer-outsourcee relationship. It was subsequently accepted by the organisation's leadership and, in acknowledgement for our efforts, members of the department received rewards.
The financial rewards we were given had been determined by our position and hence, within my department, I received the highest bonus. The financial differentiations, although standard practice in the company aroused the anger of one of my colleague, following which he lodged a complaint stating that he had carried much of the responsibilities which had been assigned to me in the design of the stated solution, in addition to which, he often has to step in and execute my departmental responsibilities.
Following receipt of the complaint, the HR manager called me in. He informed me that, upon subtle investigation, he ha discovered that the complaints were baseless. He also advised me that there were two possible approaches to the problem at this stage. The first was for the HR department to step in and officially investigate the claim, following which the outcome f the investigation will determine actions to be taken against either my colleague or myself. The second option was for me to resolve this obviously personal problem on an intra-departmental level.
AAfter considering the two options, I decided that the second one was the better of the two. In the first place, this was a problem which was rooted in personality clashes and differences. In the second place, were it not resolved on an intra-departmental level, department cohesion and unity will be jeopardised and, naturally, so will the department's ability to work as a tram.
Thinking over this particular problem, I realised that the key to the solution lay in both my academic and experiential learning. The extent to which this realisation guided me towards the arrival at an effective solution shall be outlined in this research.
2 Literature Review: Learning Theories
As English (1999) points out, the process by which humans learn is a complicated one and, hence, the focal point of theories, debates and discussions. From the perspective of one whose learning must have practical implications and applications, I believe that all learning theories are valid, whether the behavioural, the cognitive or the experiential. Nevertheless, to date the experiential learning theory remains the most viable and valid, if only because, rather than seek the negation of other learning theories, embraces them, culminating in the articulation of an as holistic as possible theory of learning. Through a critical review and discursive analysis of the leading learning theories and theorists, this section shall clarify the contributory value of each to the development of the effective, problem-solving manager.
Behaviourism, as a learning theory and approach, largely derives from stimulus-response research and, as such, rather than focus upon the cognitive dimensions of learning, seeks to address the non-cognitive human instincts and motivators. Learning is based upon operant conditioning, as proposed by Skinner, or upon classical conditioning as theorised by Pavlov, and largely relies on motivating learner through a conditioned response-reward paradigm (McNeil, 1996). This learning theory has proven successful vis--vis the